Vol. 15 · pages 396–400

379PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES General of the State and also the Attorney-General of the Government of India, because, in this matter, they are the final advisers of the Government and on whose advice alone the Government could act. The number of Acts in the Provinces are legion : the number of Acts made by the States are equally large. One can well imagine the amount of time which would be necessary in order to go through the process which I have detailed here before the Central Government could come to the conclusion that a particular law must be declared to be null and void or must be modified in certain parts in order that it may be brought into line with the Constitution and the President may accordingly issue an Order. It is therefore not quite so easy as some people in the House seem to think. It is a very elaborate and labourious process. After all, what is the President in this matter? The President is a law making authority. His authority is practically co-extensive with the authority of Parliament. But, in order that it may be done in an expeditious manner, we have vested the President with this particular power. I am sure that so important and so crucial a power of law-making practically could not be exercised in a hurried manner and to make some kind of a change may be absolutely inappropriate and quite unjustified. These are the reasons why it has not been possible for the Law Ministry to complete the task and why the Law Ministry thinks that perhaps one more year may be necessary. It should also be remembered in this connection that the Law Ministry has been now for the last three months practically busy with the work of elections, preparing the two Representation of the People Bills, delimitation of constituencies, considering the amendments that are coming to the Order of the President delimiting the constituencies etc. They will also be busy with making rules and all sorts of other things relating to the elections and these are matters which are now outstanding before the Law Ministry. And especially in view of the limited staff of the Law Ministry, I cannot see how any spare staff can be found or how time can be found to be devoted exclusively for the purposes of carrying out the object laid down in article 372. Therefore,

380 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES further time is necessary. And that is the reason why this amendment has been moved. With regard to the point made by my friend Ch. Ranbir Singh relating to the declaration that the Punjab Land Alienation Act is invalid and inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, I should like to say this. The point that he raised was that it was wrong on the part of the Government of India to have abrogated the whole of that legislation that has been operating there. Well, this matter also was considered in the Law Ministry, whether it was possible to modify some of the provisions of that Act and leave the rest intact. But I should like to tell the House that with all the goodwill in the world, so far as that Act was concerned, both the AttorneyGeneral here and, if I remember correctly, the law officers of the Punjab Government agreed that every one of the provisions of that Act was inconsistent with the Constitution. Therefore we had no remedy left except to declare the whole Act invalid. Now, I have given the justifications to the House why this amendment is necessary and I hope the House will be satisfied with the explanation that I have given. Shri Kamath: What about the suggestion to have a Committee of this House to help the Law Ministry ? Dr. Ambedkar: Yes. With regard to that, there again, as I said a Committee of the House might help at a much later stage. But unless I am in a position to place before any Committee of this House material which has already been examined by somebody, the Commiittee, in my judgment, could not come to any conclusion. Preliminaries will be necessary and I myself have got an idea in my mind that it may be desirable to appoint a small Committee of some retired High Court judges to examine the matter and report to us as to what are the laws which require consideration from the point of view of article 372. Shri Kamath: Members of the House ? Dr. Ambedkar: I thought my friend said lawyer Members. Yes, they may be co-opted. After the report is received, they may be taken into confidence and the matter may be decided.

381PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Shrimati Durgabai: I would like to get one point cleared by the Hon. Law Minister. We have been told that whenever a law is made by a State Legislature on any item in the Concurrent List, it would come to the Centre automatically for consultation, advice and all that. I would like to know when such a proposed legislation is sent to the Centre, whether the matter is left to the draftsmen to decide whether the law is inconsistent or not ? What is the procedure ? Dr. Ambedkar: The lady is thoroughly confused. I am sorry to say. Shrimati Durgabai: That does not matter. The Law Minister may clear up the confusion. Dr. Ambedkar: Adaptation applies to existing laws. It does not apply to future laws. All the laws that come to us for such consultation are future laws. The article deals with the existing laws which were made when there was no Chapter on Fundamental Rights anywhere in the Government of India Act and which have now become subject to the Fundamental Rights, and therefore inconsistent. So the inconsistency has to be removed. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The point is, with respect to any law that is being now made. If it is in the Concurrent List, it is reserved for the President’s consent. When such a law comes up, it is left to the draftsmen to find out whether it is inconsistent or not? Dr. Ambedkar: The draftsman certainly plays his part; but the Law Ministry takes the responsibility and the Cabinet also takes the responsibility. Shri Husain Imam : May I know what is the position with regard to those Acts that are in the Schedule ? Have they been adapted or are they proposed to be adapted ? For instance the Bombay Act LXVII has certain reservations on the lines of the Punjab Land Alienation Act which has been declared ultra vires. Do Government propose to modify this Act ? It is item 2 in the Ninth Schedule. The Bombay Tenancy and

382 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 does not deal with abolition of zamindaries, but says that transfer shall not take place between certain classes. Dr. Ambedkar: The answer of the House is that these Acts shall be validated by the Constitution without the necessity of adaptation. I am bound by the decision of the House. This point should have been raised yesterday. Shri Naziruddin Ahmad: I raised that very point yesterday, but you rejected it. Shri Rajagopalachari: Further questions may be postponed to the interpellation programme, and the present clause may be got through. Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have had sufficient discussion. The question is: “That clause 12 stand part of the Bill.” The House divided: Ayes, 232: Noes, 9. * Prof. S. L. Saksena: It hurts me very much that this amendment should be made to our Constitution. After all, when we framed our Constitution we were very careful to see that our judiciary is above suspicion and that it is independent and able to interpret the Constitution in the best manner possible. Still we have found the Law Minister accusing the Supreme Court the other day of having wrongly interpreted the purpose of one of the provisions. The Prime Minister also has been saying that the intention of the makers of the Constitution has not been brought out by the interpretation of the judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts. I think this is a very unfair criticism : if the Supreme Court judges who have given these rulings were foreigners probably there might have been some suspicion, that they were not patriotic and therefore did not interpret our laws correctly. I personally feel that if you... * P. D., Vol 12, Part II, 2nd June 1951, pp. 10020-21.

383PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. Ambedkar: I should like to repudiate any such suggestion as my hon. friend is making. We impute no bad motives to the Judges. Prof. S. L. Saksena: I am glad that he has said it today. Apart from the reasons given by my friend, Prof. Shah, that we should not change the Constitution for the sake of four persons, still even on principle I think that a foreigner sitting in the place of the Chief Justice will not have the independence and courage to give a judgment which will be above suspicion. The Law Minister said that nobody has cast an aspersion on the Judges. I have carefully read the speech of the Prime Minister…… Mr. Chairman : May I just remind the hon. Member that the point at issue is not what the Law Minister or the Prime Minister has said in some other connection ? We are considering this clause and their view is not relevant to its consideration. The only point relevant is whether this clause should be accepted. I would beg of the hon. Member to confine his remarks to this question alone. * Shri Rajagopalachari: The hon. Member wants to know what prohibition there was which we are trying to remove. Article 217 contains the prohibition against any Judge being a non-citizen. All the Judges would be covered by that provision. That is sought to be removed by a transitory provision. Mr. Chairman: If a person cannot become a Judge of a High Court how can he become the Chief Justice ? Shri Shiv Charan Lal: Transfer is covered by article 222. Therefore, for transfer it is not necessary that the Judge should be a citizen and it is not necessary to have this amendment. Dr. Ambedkar : Sir, if it satisfies the House I would like to propose an amendment to clause 13 which would read thus : In page 4, lines 8 and 9, “or of the Supreme Court”. Shri Kamath: That is one of my two amendments that I have moved. * P. D., Vol 12, Part II, 2nd June 1951, p. 10024.